I have put down a few theses on which I will make some
comments. For lack of time I was unable to present a
circumstantial and systematic report.

The basic question is the attitude to the war. The main
thing that comes to the fore, when you read about Russia
and see what goes on here, is the victory of defencism, the
victory of the traitors to socialism, the deception of the
masses by the bourgeoisie. What strikes one is that here in
Russia the socialist movement is in the same state as in other
countries: defencism, “defence of the fatherland”. The
difference is that nowhere is there such freedom as here, and
therefore we have a special responsibility to the whole
international proletariat. The new government is as imperialist as
the previous one; it is imperialist through and through,
despite its promise of a republic.

“I. In our attitude towards the war, which under the
new government of Lvov and Co. unquestionably remains on
Russia’s part a predatory imperialist war owing to the
capitalist nature of that government, not the slightest
concession to ‘revolutionary defencism’ is permissible.

“The class-conscious proletariat can give its consent to a
revolutionary war, which would really justify revolutionary
defencism, only on condition:
a) that power passes to the
proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants aligned
with the proletariat;
b) that all annexations are renounced in
deed and not in word;
c) that a complete break is effected
in actual fact with all capitalist interests.

“In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections
of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism who
accept the war only as a necessity, and not as a means of
conquest, in view of the fact that they are being deceived by
the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness,
persistence and patience to explain their error to them, to
explain the inseparable connection existing between
capital and the imperialist war, and to prove that without
overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly
democratic peace, a peace not imposed by violence.

“The most widespread campaign for this view must be
organised in the army at the front.

We cannot allow the slightest concession to defencism in
our attitude to the war even under the new government,
which remains imperialist. The masses lake a practical
and not a theoretical view of things. They say: “I want to
defend the fatherland, not to seize other peoples’ lands.”
When can a war be considered your own? When annexations
are completely renounced.

The masses take a practical and not a theoretical
approach to the question. We make the mistake of taking the
theoretical approach. A class-conscious proletarian can agree
to a revolutionary war, which really does justify revolutionary
defencism. The practical approach is the only possible one
with representatives of the mass of the soldiers. We are not
pacifists in any sense. But the main question is: which class
is carrying on the war? The class of capitalists, linked with
the banks, cannot wage any kind of war except an
imperialist one. The working class can. Steklov and Chkheidze have
forgotten everything. When you read the resolution of the
Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, you are amazed that people
calling themselves socialists could adopt such a
resolution.[6]

What is specific in Russia is the extremely rapid
transition from savage violence to the most subtle deception. The
main condition is renunciation of annexations not in words,
but in deeds. Rech howls at Sotsial-Demokrat’s statement
that the integration of Courland with Russia is annexation.
But annexation is the integration of any country with
distinct national peculiarities; it is any integration of a nation
against its will, irrespective of whether it differs in language,
if it feels itself to be another people. This is a prejudice of
the Great Russians which has been fostered for centuries.

The war can be ended only by a clean break with
international capital. The war was engendered not by individuals
but by international finance capital. It is no easy thing to
break with international capital, but neither is it an easy
thing to end the war. It is childishness and naivete to
expect one side alone to end the war.... Zimmerwald,
Kienthal[7].... We have a greater obligation than anyone else
to safeguard the honour of international socialism. The
difficulty of approach....

In view of the undoubted existence of a defencist mood
among the masses, who recognise the war only of necessity
and not for the sake of conquest, we must explain to them
most circumstantially, persistently and patiently that the
war cannot be ended in a non-rapacious peace unless capital
is overthrown. This idea must be spread far and wide.
The soldiers want a concrete answer: how to end the war.
But it is political fraud to promise the people that we can
end the war only by the goodwill of individual persons.
The masses must be forewarned. A revolution is a difficult
thing. It is impossible to avoid mistakes. Our mistake is
that we (have not exposed?) revolutionary defencism to
the full. Revolutionary defencism is betrayal of socialism.
We cannot confine ourselves.... We must admit our
mistake. What is to be done? To explain. How to present... who
doesn’t know what socialism is.... We are not charlatans.
We must base ourselves only on the political consciousness
of the masses. Even if we have to remain in a minority—let
it be so. It is worth while giving up our leading position
for a time; we should not be afraid of remaining in
a minority. When the masses say they don’t want conquest,
I believe them. When Guchkov and Lvov say they don’t
want conquest, they are swindlers. When the worker says
that he wants to defend the country, he voices the oppressed
man’s instinct.

“II. The specific feature of the present situation in
Russia is that the country is passing from the first stage of the
revolution—which, owing to the insufficient class–
consciousness and organisation of the proletariat, placed power
in the hands of the bourgeoisie—to the second stage, which
must place power in the hands of the proletariat and the
poorest sections of the peasants.

“This transition is characterised, on the one hand, by
a maximum of legally recognised rights (Russia is now the
freest of all the belligerent countries in the world); on the
other, by the absence of violence towards the masses, and,
finally, by their unreasoning trust in the government of
capitalists, those worst enemies of peace and socialism.

“This peculiar situation demands of us an ability to adapt
ourselves to the special conditions of Party work among
unprecedentedly large masses of proletarians who have
just awakened to political life.”

Why didn’t they take power? Steklov says: for this
reason and that. This is nonsense. The fact is that the
proletariat is not organised and class-conscious enough. This
must be admitted; material strength is in the hands of the
proletariat, but the bourgeoisie turned out to be prepared
and class-conscious. This is a monstrous fact, but it should
be frankly and openly admitted, and the people should
be told that they didn’t take power because they were
unorganised and not conscious enough.... The ruin of millions,
the death of millions. The most advanced countries are on
the brink of disaster, and they will therefore be faced with
the question....

The transition from the first stage to the second—the
transfer of power to the proletariat and the peasantry—is
characterised, on the one hand, by the maximum of
legality (Russia today is the freest and most progressive
country in the world) and, on the other, by an attitude of
blind trust on the part of the masses in the government.
Even our Bolsheviks show some trust in the government.
This can be explained only by the intoxication of the
revolution. It is the death of socialism. You comrades have
a trusting attitude to the government. If that is so, our
paths diverge. I prefer to remain in a minority. One
Liebknecht is worth more than 110 defencists of the Steklov and
Chkheidze type. If you sympathise with Liebknecht and
stretch out even a finger (to the defencists), it will be
betrayal of international socialism. If we break away from those
people ... everyone who is oppressed will come to us,
because the war will lead him to us; he has no other way out.

The people should be spoken to without Latin words,
in clear and simple terms. They have the right ...—we
must adapt ourselves ... make the change, but it is
essential. Our line will prove to be the correct one.

“III. No support for the Provisional Government; the
utter falsity of all its promises should be made clear,
particularly of those relating to the renunciation of
annexations. Exposure in place of the impermissible,
illusion-breeding ‘demand’ that this government, a government
of capitalists, should cease to be an imperialist
government. ”

Pravda demands of the government that it should renounce
annexations. To demand of a government of capitalists
that it should renounce annexations is nonsense, a crying
mockery of....

From the scientific standpoint this is such gross
deception which all the international proletariat, all.... It is
time to admit our mistake. We’ve had enough of greetings
and resolutions, it is time to act. We must get down to a
sober, business-like....

“IV. Recognition of the fact that in most of the Soviets
of Workers’ Deputies our Party is in a minority, so far a
small minority, as against a bloc of all the petty-bourgeois
opportunist elements, from the Popular
Socialists[8] and
the Socialist-Revolutionaries down to the Organising
Committee (Chkheidze, Tsereteli, etc.), Steklov, etc., etc., who
have yielded to the influence of the bourgeoisie and spread
that influence among the proletariat.

“The masses must be made to see that the Soviets of
Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of
revolutionary government, and that therefore our task is, as long
as this government yields to the influence of the
bourgeoisie, to present a patient, systematic, and persistent
explanation of the errors of their tactics, an explanation
especially adapted to the practical needs of the masses.

“As long as we are in the minority we carry on the work
of criticising and exposing errors and at the same time
we preach the necessity of transferring the entire state power
to the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, so that the people
may overcome their mistakes by experience.”

We Bolsheviks are in the habit of taking the line of
maximum revolutionism. But that is not enough. We must sort
things out.

The Soviet of Workers’ Deputies is the real government.
To think otherwise is to fall into anarchism. It is a
recognised fact that in the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies our
Party is in a minority. We must explain to the masses
that the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies is the only possible
government, a government without parallel in the world,
except for the Commune. What if a majority of the Soviet
of Workers’ Deputies takes the defencist stand? That
cannot be helped. It remains for us to explain, patiently,
persistently, systematically, the erroneous nature of their
tactics.

So long as we are in a minority, we carry on the work
of criticism, in order to open the people’s eyes to the
deception. We don’t want the masses to take our word for it. We
are not charlatans. We want the masses to overcome their
mistakes through experience.

The manifesto of the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies
contains not a word imbued with class-consciousness. It’s all
talk! Talk, flattery of the revolutionary people, is the
only thing that has ruined all revolutions. The whole of
Marxism teaches us not to succumb to revolutionary
phrases, particularly at a time when they have the greatest
currency.

“V. Not a parliamentary republic—to return to a
parliamentary republic from the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies
would be a retrograde step—but a republic of Soviets of
Workers’, Agricultural Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies
throughout the country, from top to bottom.

“The salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective
and displaceable at any time, not to exceed the average
wage of a competent worker.”

This is the lesson of the French Commune, which Kautsky
forgot and which the workers teach us in 1905 and 1917.
The experience of these years teaches us that we must not
allow the police and the old army to be restored.

The programme should be changed, it is out of date.
The Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies is a step to
socialism. There must be no police, no army, no
officialdom. The convocation of the Constituent Assembly—but
by whom? Resolutions are written only to be shelved or
sat on. I should be glad to have the Constituent Assembly
convened tomorrow, but it is naïve to believe that
Guchkov will call it. All the chatter about forcing the
Provisional Government to call the Constituent Assembly is empty
talk, a pack of lies. Revolutions were made, but the police
stayed on, revolutions were made, but all the officials,
etc., stayed on. That was why the revolutions foundered.
The Soviet of Workers’ Deputies is the only government
which can call that assembly. We all seized upon the
Soviets of Workers’ Deputies, but have failed to
understand them. From this form we are dragging back to the
International, which is trailing behind the bourgeoisie.

A bourgeois republic cannot solve the problem (of the
war), because it can be solved only on an international
scale. We don’t promise liberation ... but we say that
it is possible only in this form (Soviet of Workers’ and
Soldiers’ Deputies). No government except the Soviet of
Workers’ and Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies. If you
talk about the Commune, they won’t understand. But if
you say, there is the Soviet of Workers’ and Agricultural
Labourers’ Deputies instead of the police, learn to govern—
no one can interfere with us—(that they will understand).

No books will ever teach you the art of government.
Learning to govern is a matter of trial and error.

“VI. The weight of emphasis in the agrarian programme to
be shifted to the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies.

“Nationalisation of all lands in the country, the land to
be disposed of by the local Soviets of Agricultural
Labourers’ and Peasants’ Deputies. The organisation of separate
Soviets of Deputies of Poor Peasants. The setting up of a
model farm on each of the large estates (ranging in size
from 100 to 300 dessiatines, according to local and other
conditions and to the decisions of the local bodies) under
the control of the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’
Deputies and for the public account.”

What is the peasantry? We don’t know, there are no
statistics, but we do know that it is a force.

If they take the land, you can be sure that they won’t
give it back to you, they won’t ask us. The pivot, the
centre of gravity of the programme has shifted, and is
the Soviets of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies. If the
Russian peasant doesn’t settle the revolution, the
German worker will.

It is necessary to organise separate Soviets of Deputies
from the poor peasants. There is the rich muzhik, and there
is the labourer. Even if you give him land, he won’t set
up a farm. The large estates should be turned into model
farms run on social lines, with management by the Soviets
of Agricultural Labourers’ Deputies.

“VII. The immediate amalgamation of all banks in the
country into a single national bank, and the institution
of control over it by the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies.”

The bank is “a form of social book-keeping” (Marx).
War teaches economy; everyone knows that the banks
sap the strength of the people. The banks are the
nerve, the focus of the national economy. We cannot
take hold of the banks, but we advocate their
amalgamation under the control of the Soviet of Workers’
Deputies.

“VIII. It is not our immediate task to ‘introduce’
socialism, but only to bring social production and the
distribution of products at once under the control of the Soviets
of Workers’ Deputies.”

Practice and the revolution tend to push the Constituent
Assembly into the background. The important thing about
laws is not that they are put down on paper, but who
carries them out. The dictatorship of the proletariat is there,
but people don’t know how to work it. Capitalism has
developed into state capitalism.... Marx ... only that which
has matured in practice....

The Soviet of Workers’ Deputies has been created, it
enjoys vast influence. All instinctively sympathise with
it. This institution combines far more revolutionary thought
than all the revolutionary phrases. If the Soviet of
Workers’ Deputies succeeds in taking government into its own
hands, the cause of liberty is assured. You may write the
most ideal laws, but who will put them into effect? The
same officials, but they are tied up with the bourgeoisie.

It is not “introduce socialism” that we ought to tell
the masses, but put it into effect (?). Capitalism has gone
ahead, war capitalism is different from that which existed
before the war.

On the basis of our tactical conclusions we must go on
to practical steps. A Party congress must be called at once
and the Programme revised. A great deal in it is out of
date. The minimum programme must be changed.

I personally propose that we change the name of our
Party and call it the Communist Party. The people will
understand the name of “Communist”. Most of the official
Social-Democrats have committed treason, they have
betrayed socialism.... Liebknecht is the one Social–
Democrat.... You are afraid of betraying old recollections. But
if you want to change your underwear you must take off
your dirty shirt and put on a clean one. Why throw out
the experience of world-wide struggle? Most of the
Social-Democrats throughout the world have betrayed socialism,
and have sided with their governments (Scheidemann,
Plekhanov, Guesde). What is to be done to make Scheidemann
agree?... This point of view spells ruin for socialism. It
would be deception to send a radio telegram to Scheidemann
about ending the war....

The term “Social-Democracy” is inexact. Don’t cling
to an old word which has become rotten through and
through. If you want to build a new party ... and all the
oppressed will come to you.

The Centre prevailed at Zimmerwald and Kienthal....
Rabochaya Gazeta. We shall prove to you that the whole of
experience has shown.... We declare that we have formed
a Left wing and have broken with the Centre. Either you
speak about the International, then carry out..., or you....

The Left Zimmerwald trend exists in all the countries
of the world. The masses must realise that socialism has
split throughout the world. The defencists have renounced
socialism. Liebknecht alone.... The future is with him.

I have heard that there is a tendency in Russia towards
unification, towards unity with the defencists. This is
betrayal of socialism. I think it is better to remain alone,
like Liebknecht: one against 110.

Notes

[1]i.e., the standing army to be replaced by the arming of the whole
people.—Lenin

[2]That is, a state of which the Paris Commune was the prototype.—Lenin

[3]We must call ourselves the Communist Party, instead
of “Social-Democratic”, for the official Social-Democrat leaders
throughout the world have betrayed socialism and have gone over to
the bourgeoisie (the “defencists” and wavering “Kautskians”).—Lenin

[4]
“Centre” is the name given among international
Social-Democrats to the trend which wavers between the chauvinists (=the
“defencists”) and the internationalists, namely, Kautsky and Co.
in Germany; Longuet and Co. in France; Chkheidze and Co. in
Russia; Turati and Co. in Italy; MacDonald and Co. in Britain, etc.—Lenin

[5]All-Russia Conference of Party Workers (March Conference) was
timed by the Russian Bureau of the R.S.D.L.P. C.C. for the
All-Russia Conference of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’
Deputies and opened on March 27 (April 9), 1917. On its agenda were:
attitude to the war, attitude to the Provisional Government,
organisation of revolutionary forces, etc.

The meeting of April 4 (17) at which Lenin gave his report was
held in the Taurida Palace. Lenin explained his April Theses and
quoted them in part. The text of his speech is reproduced from
secretarial notes containing lacunae indicated with dots, apart
from some places of the notes which are not quite clear.

All-Russia Conference of Soviets of Workers’ and Soldiers’
Deputies, called by the Executive Committee of the Petrograd
Soviet, was held at Petrograd from March 29 to April 3 (April
11 to 16), 1917.

It was attended by representatives of the Petrograd Soviet
and 82 local Soviets, and also of army units at the front and in
the rear. It discussed the questions of the war, the attitude to the
Provisional Government, the Constituent Assembly, land, food, and
other problems.

The Conference, which was dominated by Mensheviks and S.R.s,
took the attitude of “revolutionary defencism” (325 against 57)
and adopted a decision to support the bourgeois Provisional
Government and also to call an international socialist conference
on the question of withdrawal from the war. G. V. Plekhanov
made two speeches in a spirit of social-patriotism. There were
interruptions from the defencist majority when the Bolshevik
P. I. Starostin called for an end to the war.

The Conference added 16 members to the Executive Committee
of the Petrograd Soviet, including six from the Army and Navy.

[6]A reference to a resolution on Tsereteli’s report on the attitude
towards the war, tabled by the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’
and Soldiers’ Deputies, controlled by Mensheviks and S.R.s,
and adopted by the All-Russia Conference of Soviets of Workers’
and Soldiers’ Deputies on March 30 (April 12), 1917. Behind a
facade of general statements about freedom and defence of the
revolution, the resolution urged support for the Provisional
Government’s foreign policy, i.e., continuation of the imperialist war.

[7]A reference to the international socialist conferences at
Zimmerwald and Kienthal.

[8]Popular Socialists—members of a petty-bourgeois Trudovik
Popular Socialist Party formed in 1906 by Right-wingers of the
Socialist-Revolutionary Party (S.R.). They sided with the Cadets;
Lenin called them “Social-Cadets”, “philistine opportunists”,
“S.R. Mensheviks”, vacillating between the S.R.s and the Cadets.
He said, the party “differs very little from the Cadets, for it
deletes from its programme both republicanism and the demand
for all the land” =
(see present edition, Vol. 11, p. 228). Among
the party’s leaders were A. V. Peshekhonov, N. F. Annensky
and V. A. Myakotin.